Right you are making the assumption that everyone has the same attitude as you do, when clearly that’s not the case. So making statements about how you would react to dual spec and assuming that everyone else would do the same is flawed and obviously incorrect.
I am making the assumption that I’m not atypical and that the psychology behind reward and gating systems that the gaming industry has used for decades is relatively sound. And then I used myself as an example.
According to you I can’t give reasons that don’t cater to every edge case or use myself or my own experience as examples … maybe adhere to your own standard. I don’t have to meet your bogus onus of proof. I know you have no interest at all in considering my view fairly.
At this point you’re moving into herring territory in order to drown out the point being made (as usual). I’m a perfectly fine example for my point and the point doesn’t rest on that one example.
I’m letting it rest there - these are points I’ve raised before and we’ve done this before. Eventually it leads back to you claiming I have no reasons except #nochanges - which is plainly false - but that’s where you will drive this.
I mean let’s break down what your objection is here:
According to you everyone will play more with dual spec because niche players with niche play habits will play more, and that will lead to an increase in activity even though average players will play less? That’s nonsensical. It’s a herring objection to my point. The purpose of your herring is for you to build a narrative around me forcing my preference on others when in fact that’s exactly what you are trying to do. Orwellian as always.
Me: “Just using myself as an example …”
You: “You’re saying everyone has to play the way you do”.
Except you are applying your personal effort/reward values to other people despite them clearly explaining that they are not the same as yours. So how you would respond to dual spec is not indicative of how everyone else would. I don’t know if it’s just an ego problem or if you genuinely don’t understand that other people might react differently.
I mean, you can’t say “some changes” and then nitpick which ones are ok and which ones aren’t, that’s not maintaining authenticity.
It’s either no changes, or it’s changes. Had the alliance players not complained about seal of blood, they wouldn’t have given it to them. The fact that it’s a player driven change means that players have every right to ask for dual spec.
I think that giving players dual spec is far less impactful than giving alliance seal of blood.
There have been changes, that doesn’t mean there will be more changes.
lol, this is the most laughable thing I’ve read.
You’re telling me that the tactical choice to give alliance, the wildly underplayed faction, a spell that literally decides whether Ret paladins are even usable in PvE, was a bad move?
That’s a change that actually affected, severely, the health of the game in a way that doesn’t harm the authenticity of the game.
Dual spec literally gives every player a ginormous boon to player-spec autonomy that not did not exist in real TBC, but devs in TBC were explicitly against its addition, meaning it’s impossible to even approach feigning as if the expansion can be authentic with it added.
You won’t get dual spec until WOTLK, and you’ll just have to deal with that.
So by your vehemence that alliance are the wildly underplayed faction, strongly rallied for horde PVE buffs in classic wow - right?
Please don’t belittle the experience of other players. What you deem is important to you may not be important to others, and visa versa. As a horde player, Alliance had omega easy mode in classic. They complained and got seal of blood, in an expansion where horde suddenly wasn’t worse at PVE.
These are massive changes. Dual spec just allows people to play the game more in the way they want to, especially during a time when it’s so difficult to find groups based on the server you inadvertently chose 2.5 years ago.
Quote me all you want, you’re clearly biased and it’s incredibly transparent.
Of course I’m biased, I’m just fortunate enough that Blizzard feels the same way on just the right number of things that has led to them completely ignoring cries for dual spec.
Everybody is biased for what they want, kind of a silly, and arbitrary, accusation.
It’s objectively true that dual spec goes directly against the authenticity of TBC, and is likely the reason Blizzard has ignored requests for it to be added.
That’s not biased. That’s literally an objective take.
I know it makes things easier for you to try and dismiss arguments by labeling everything as unreasonable, but those are the facts of the matter.
You can want dual spec all you want though, it doesn’t change that you won’t get it.
I’ll ask again, did you rally against any changes that went directly against the authenticity of TBC? Did you rally against seal of blood being given to alliance? Did you rally against batching being removed? Did you rally against the release schedule of BT/Hyjal? SSC/TK? Did you rally behind hunter macros being broken? Did you rally against the early nerfs to SSC/TK? If not, then you really can’t say what you’re saying and expect to be taken seriously.
You can’t just pick and choose what you want, then be upset at others for picking and choosing what they want to be upset about, or what changes they want to ask for. That’s not how any of this works.
I mean, I could have gone without it. Blizzard announced pre-launch, no much I can do.
Yeah, you’re gonna have to first figure out the difference between design choices, and technological limitations no longer existing before we go in to that.
Yup, and didn’t like the nerfs either.
Don’t know anything about that.
Absolutely.
I’m not. I’m assessing a change to be inauthentic, using simple heuristics (was it in TBC? No? Ok, it’s inauthentic) and saying precisely what Blizzard said to it back then:
OK so you’re legitimately #nochangesunlesswecomplainandblizzardchangesitthensomechangesbutnomorechangesandwewillignorethechangesthatblizzardalreadymadewhenarguingnochanges
Wild; more power to you, I wish you luck with that worldview. The rest of us want to be able to play the game without having to reset our UI constantly. Maybe they can give us dual spec, but allow people to opt out of having it - and you can play as you like.
I don’t think all pro dual spec folk are coming from the same place. But yeah some are.
Or rather they’re #allchangesIpersonallywantbutnochangesIdontpersonallylike.
The problem is that the reasons for change are arbitrary and appeals to things like game design cohesion are brushed aside as voided or unimportant.
There’s no thought to the basic question “how much change is too much change?” Where does the line get drawn?
People arguing “where I want it to” are not giving a genuine answer.
It’s arbitrary and completely impossible to resolve.
You want dual spec because you want it. I don’t want it because I don’t. Case closed. Unless there’s a line.
At this point people are saying the game is changed to ruination already so why not just give me the thing I want. And as soon as someone says they don’t want that the response is “you’re just trying to ruin my fun for no reason”.
It’s a BS unresolvable discussion.
Side A: “I want DS because I want it”
Side B: “I don’t want DS”
Side A: “You can’t stop me from getting what I want because the game is already ruined”
There’s literally nothing objective of debatable to hook a discussion onto there.
I think the open minded view is held my most people, which is:
If something is actively making it harder for people to play the game and there is a large outcry, consider the community feedback about it and provide a clear public response.
I personally don’t agree with turning TBC into retail, though I believe there are quality of life changes that can be made that won’t make the gameplay easier, but will make the game easier to play. There is a huge difference between those things.
On the other side of it, giving alliance seal of blood made the game easier for them. We accept that change, there’s no reason why we can’t accept changes that keep the essence of the game the same.
I did in wrath and I would in BC with dual spec. My druid is specced dps. Since I don’t respec I don’t do a lot of dungeons, only in a dps role. If I’m out questing and I see some group in lfg spamming for a healer I’d join that group and heal. But I’m not going to pay 100 gold to heal one dungeon. It would take me longer to farm the respec costs then it takes to do that one dungeon. The respec cost takes that type of spontaneity out of the game and makes it harder for groups to find a tank or healer. There are many who have posted here that they would tank or heal with dual spec but specced dps because a tank or healing spec makes everything but dungeons unfun for them.
That’s you but that’s not everyone. You’re focused on the gear you need to upgrade and the consumes you need to get to do that content. Some players do things just for fun. I’ve do normal dungeons every day just because I find them fun. And heroics, and I don’t even need anymore gear or badges from heroics. But there is a limit how much time I’m going to spend doing things I don’t find fun to do that.